Posted
by
BeauHDon Friday March 18, 2016 @05:59PM
from the catering-to-the-demographics dept.

An anonymous reader writes from an article on TechCrunch: Microsoft hired a bunch of women wearing very little clothing to dance and socialize with people at the company's official Game Developers Conference after-party last night in San Francisco, Business Insider reports. Phil Spencer, head of Xbox, said in a statement to TechCrunch. "At Xbox-hosted events at GDC this past week, we represented Xbox and Microsoft in a way that was not consistent or aligned to our values. It was unequivocally wrong and will not be tolerated. I know we disappointed many people and I'm personally committed to holding ourselves to higher standards. We must ensure that diversity and inclusion are central to our everyday business and core values. We will do better in the future." What's problematic is that Microsoft chose to throw a party that clearly caters to heterosexual men by hiring women as objects of sex.

And with that, we have finally decoded your stance. You want everyone brought down to the same level, and anything that emphasizes our differences must be destroyed because you want everyone to be the same.

We aren't, and no amount of wishing will make it so. Only turning humans into identical copies of one another can do that, and I sure don't want to live in that world.

You're pushing a lack of acceptance and calling it being considerate. I call bullshit.

Shouldn't events be inclusive of heterosexual men? If their target demographic is 90% heterosexual men, should they not market to them?

Lately, "inclusive" seems to mean cater to everyone but a certain group. In being PC, you're ultimately slighting one group in order to not offend another. That group you're catering to is actually being intolerant of the first group that has to change how they behave to not offend the other. Yet that first group is now potentially offended. People just need to grow up and realize everyone is different and not go forcing their ideals on others.

Yeah, see, that's the thing. Microsoft, and a lot of the rest of the game industry, *is* actually trying to attract a broader audience these days. The rest of the conference has shown much broader appeal, and more diverse attendance, than ever before -- and that includes what looks like its biggest attendance ever.

That's not who they're trying to attract at events like this, not any more.

Wrong. It's that companies have realized there is a large, untapped market out there. 50% of gamers are female already, and one of the biggest growth areas has been mobile games that appeal to women. Ignoring that is just ignoring a vast source of revenue.

Similarly, there is great competition for good developers. It got so bad that Apple, Google and Microsoft decided to break the law and create a no-poaching arrangement. Many tech companies are now investing vast sums of money into helping to develop talent

Microsoft is hoping to attract more people in general. The fact that the present audience is so predominantly male is part of the problem that they're trying to solve.

Let me try to make an analogy here.

Suppose you're an owner of a pub somewhere in Mississippi in 1950s. And every day, your pub runs a blackface show. Your patrons - who are all white - love it.

Now someone comes and tells you that this show is offensive to blacks.

What you're saying here is basically equivalent to the owner of said pub saying, "whatever, blacks don't like beer anyway - I'm catering to my customers, and they're all white, see?". Which is flawed for many obvious reasons.

The logical thing to do is to look at the potential customer base, and realize that those 40% of black residents who "don't drink beer" would actually drink it if you ditched the show, or replaced it with something acceptable to both audiences. And then you would attract them all as your customers.

If, furthermore, you care not only about your bottom line, but also about abstract things such as fairness and equality, then you might say, "okay, if I drop this, I might lose some white customers who really just want to be racist, but I'm okay with that".

In fact, you might do that even because you really only care about the bottom line, because having a public image of being non-racist will produce more customers long-term, even if it might drive some existing customers away.

And after you stop running the blackface show and start pandering to the blacks. But no matter what you say or do they'll find something else to whine about. Say you put a bunch of them in a new movie, they'll complain that it's somehow sexist. No matter what you do to appease this crowd they just constantly whine. And the new crowd, when they come in, tells you they don't even drink beer. They aren't really drinkers. But they sit and whine about how other people drink beer constantly.

Not only that your old customers have moved on to a new bar. Your new patreons don't actually bring more money in to the bar (since they don't seem to have actual jobs). They don't attract any new customers like them anyway since they don't seem to ever be content with what you do to pander to them, they just like complaining for the sake of complaining.

This is misleading. A lot of the purchases by women consist of women buying it for family members and the person who actually plays the game is male.

Also, figures for how many "players" of games are women typically lump together casual games with the type of games that Microsoft is marketing here. Microsoft isn't trying to appeal to the Candy Crush audience.

That's part of the problem here. This was a party, a social event, that included dancing. If the majority of the attendees to the conference are men (because it is a male dominated industry), what are you expecting them to do, dance with other men? No one is going to want to go to a party with such a skewed gender balance. It's the same reason bars don't charge women cover quite often.

An after party for a Microsoft conference. Sounds private to me. Granted, it doesn't say much of where it was. This is probably akin to, say, a presidential candidate rally. They may invite anyone who wants to come, but it's still a private event. They will remind you of that if you heckle, etc.

These are exactly the kinds of incidents that can happen when one doesn't strictly adhere to the Rust Code of Conduct [rust-lang.org]. I've started using the Rust Code of Conduct for everything I do in my life, online and offline. Before I make any sort of a decision or take any sort of an action, I whip out my copy of the Rust Code of Conduct and confirm that my actions will not violate it in any way. I have printed out a copy of the Rust Code of Conduct and I keep it on my person at all times. I have another copy in my car, one at my desk, and several placed around my home in easily accessible locations. The last thing I want is to be somewhere without my Rust Code of Conduct! Some people say that it's dumb or that it wastes too much time, but I think they're wrong. Complying with the Rust Code of Conduct all of the time is something that I think is critical to living life in our modern age.

"And if someone takes issue with something you said or did, resist the urge to be defensive. Just stop doing what it was they complained about and apologize. Even if you feel you were misinterpreted or unfairly accused, chances are good there was something you could've communicated better â" remember that it's your responsibility to make your fellow Rustaceans comfortable."
Using these guidelines, we can safely avoid any kind of worthwhile discussion and ensure that the weight of your opinion is entirely based on how quickly you can victimize yourself!

The only problem I see is lack of professionalism. Having dancers, be it male or female, at a professional event like this underestimates the intelligence of its attendees.

The dancers seemed quite professional to me, and after all they were the only ones working. In case you missed it, this was a tech conference (aka, an extended party), not a day at the office. It's all-marketing, all-sales-pitch, all-sex-appeal (mostly metaphorical sex-appeal, but still), all the time, with a thin gauze of technical briefing to fool the occasional company so that not everyone had to pay their own ride to the party.

The only problem I see is lack of professionalism. Having dancers, be it male or female, at a professional event like this underestimates the intelligence of its attendees.

No; you have a nerd party. This goes better when everyone starts dancing and is happy. That happens quicker normally when a) some motivated people start the dancing and others join or b) lots of alcohol is drunk. Having dancers, in an appropriate controlled way, is the responsible way to go forward. This is nothing to do with "intelligence" and all to do with how to have a good party. Having more mixed dancers would probably help have everybody involved, but it's not a serious issue.

Or... here's a thought.... don't cater to sexuality at all. If people want entertainment that caters to their sexual preference they should be seeking such entertainment on their own time, and not on time that is being paid for by the company dollar.

There's a little something called professionalism, and at a corporate event, this kind of thing is starkly lacking in it.

Yeah, professionalism. Bring your binder to the party, so that the bouncer will know who won't get in. Go-go dancing is professional entertainment. It's purpose is the same as hiring a band, a DJ or an MC: To get people in the mood to party, to loosen up. The only valid complaint that I would accept about this "incident" is that there was a lack of eye-fodder for the ladies. It's like people have never been to a dance club.

My point is that there shouldn't be eye fodder for ANYBODY at a corporate event because it is tantamount to sexual harassment. The fact that it's people that are being paid to present themselves as sexual entertainment is entirely irrelevant... the sexual aspect is still being foisted upon each of those who were present, whether it was invited by them or not.

Just so we're clear: Prostitutes are human beings too, and you could call their line of work professional entertainment as well. It's just not the same kind of entertainment. If you want to start an orgy, maybe they can help. If you want people to dance, go with the go-gos.

Again, I didn't say a company SHOULDN'T do advertising to a more general audience.

But the outrage when they choose to hit a specific demographic (that isn't suitably "alternative" enough) has gotten completely out of hand and some people need to grow up and realize that the world doesn't revolve around them and their personal preferences. AND THAT IS AN OKAY THING!

Please... if you are going to throw around ad-hominems, try and be more creative. I'm neither gay nor a prude. I have no problem whatsoever with sex, or even people who would present themselves sexually. Heck, I think even prostitution should be legal. I do, however, have a problem with a deliberately sexually charged atmosphere at a corporate event when the corporation's line of business is entirely independent of it. (At some types of companies, this sort of event could be entirely acceptable and professional).

I do, however, have a problem with a deliberately sexually charged atmosphere at a corporate event when the corporation's line of business is entirely independent of it.

Then don't go. That simple. Let people have fun without you but don't try to stop their fun. You're not the morality police. You're complaining about an event that hurt nobody. Literally... Not one single person was hurt.

You're manufacturing reasons to be pissy. It probably makes you feel better about yourself. I suspect there are underlying reasons but I'll skip speculating. In short, maybe seek professional help if you feel the need to complain when others are having fun that harms nobody.

Except this wasn't people interacting privately... it was at a CORPORATE EVENT. If it was just some people that happened to be from the same company that were going out on their own time to a dance club to have a good time, I'd have no problem with that.

I have a feeling a good many posters here largely feel this way. Every time some story about sexual escapades comes up, you get the Neanderthals declaring it's their God given right to slap peoples' faces with their dicks, and insisting that if anyone tells them to stop that, they've somehow been harmed because dick-slapping is totally natural and those evil SJW types want to stop them from their rightful dick slapping activities.

Which brings us full circle to the OP's comment. If it had been guys in mankinis flaunting their packages and toned six-packs in everyone's face, I somehow doubt the Neanderthals would have kept quiet about it.

What amuses me is that they're claiming that they're not a prude - and expecting us to believe this. It might be true, they might be mentally ill and not a prude at all. How sick do you have to be to get upset that someone's enjoying themselves, harmlessly, in a manner that doesn't suit your tastes - especially given that there were piles of other amusements.

They're like the fat chick at the dance who sits in the corner and cries because the good-looking people are all having fun dancing. She's usually got

Again, I have no problem with people having fun at their own events. But this was a *CORPORATE EVENT*.

Why, if one is not permitted to sexually harass employees, should a company still be permitted to subject them to a sexually charged atmosphere that is actively being paid for by the company? Really, if this were such a private party, as you suggest, then the people that might have been bothered by it wouldn't have had any occasion to be there in the first place because they would have known that thei

> Again, I have no problem with people having fun at their own events. But this was a *CORPORATE EVENT*.

*sighs* You don't see that, do you?

I'm going to try to help you out. I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt. Take it for what you will. Hate me, judge me, call me names - it's okay. But, try to read this with an open mind, okay? I'll do my best to articulate it - I'm not always as good at that as I'd like and I'm often more verbose than needed. I'll try. Seriously.

Should I be OUTRAGED when gay-themed films don't cater to me? Should I demand equal hetero time?

If you go to a party and half the attendees are the American Family Council, and the party has gay dancers, would you be surprised that they would be offended? Because reasonable adults who have half a brain pick entertainment that balances with all their guests.

They don't have to go get fucked but I'm not sure why they'd feel obligated to not let other people enjoy themselves. I understand that it's sad when someone else is enjoying themselves and you're not but everything in life isn't able to please everything else. I'm not sure why people are so hell bent on preventing other people from enjoying themselves. I'm sure there were plenty of other things to do than look at the ladies. It's not like it was just pretty ladies to the exclusion of all else.

If you don't like it, don't pay attention to it and do something else. But, for fuck's sake, stop trying to stop other people from enjoying themselves. It's literally not hurting anyone. It's okay if someone else is enjoying themselves more than you are. That doesn't need to diminish your enjoyment at all. You don't have to be angry that someone else is having fun. Do you get angry when you're too big to ride on the children's rides at the fair? Do you try to kick the kids off because it's not inclusive enough and you can't enjoy it? 'Cause that's what it sounds like to me.

It's yet another case of manufactured outrage. You don't even have a good reason to be outraged except that other people were enjoying themselves and, instead of paying attention to the things they might have enjoyed instead, they paid attention to the fact that others were enjoying themselves more than they were. It's sad, it really is. People have varied interests, let them enjoy them so long as they're not harming anyone. Nobody, nobody at all, was harmed in this event.

Heterosexual women like looking at sexualized women or else the fashion industry, which markets to women because they spend a lot more than men on fashion, wouldnt use so many sexualized women.

These social justice warriors like to try to turn this fashion fact into another attack on men, by saying that this "unrealistic" portrayal of women is the fault of the patriarchy. Its not possible that marketing is actually simple, that the marketers are targeting the demographic that they say they are targeting,

I tried to turn my mother-in-law onto Cagney & Lacey. She would have none of it because the girls were ugly. This is despite the fact that she herself is an engineering professional with 30 years of industry experience. She didn't care for Gloria Steinem's favorite cop show because it did not appeal to her "inner girl".

I have a lot of friends and spend a bit of time with them in what they self-reference as the "Queer Community."

What's amusing is that the vast, vast majority of them are not actually the whiny, complaining, unhappy folks - specifically about subjects like this. They'd think it was awesome and maybe even dance with 'em too. And they're awesome people.

I hate to say this, it just kind of sounds wrong. I'm not very good at articulating things, so, I'm not sure if this will come out right. Basically, the only vo

With all the improvements that are being made to this wonderful site one of the biggest flaws brought in big part by the previous owners (DICE) was the overly politicised topics that not even tangentially touches the historical major focus of this site: technology and its applications.

It is my belief that, for the original audience of this site, some here since before the 9/11, some even from when http colon slash slash was actually pronounced when reading URLs out loud, the main drive to come and read the front page is to catch up with the latest of the technology and its applications.

This kind of politicised subject (the same going for the U.S. elections, ISIS, the refugee crisis and general gossip) already abounds in the mainstream media and for more than a decade this used to be the place to run away from all that, to read about the subjects that are our jobs and our passions and to welcome our robotic overlords.

Unicode, https, burying videos, all that would be secondary if this kind of article continues to be propped up in here.

It is time for some transparency here: did this article even passed through the firehose? People actually voted for it? Maybe times changed and people here are voting for this kind of article to the front page but, otherwise, it would be a great update, maybe the greatest, to go back to the roots of "News for Nerds, stuff that matter".

Either that or at least inform the audience that Slashdot is OK with this kind of articles, that the desired audience is a new audience with a different profile and give us the alternative to go look for an alternative.

Dear whiplash
It is time for some transparency here: did this article even passed through the firehose? People actually voted for it? Maybe times changed and people here are voting for this kind of article to the front page but, otherwise, it would be a great update, maybe the greatest, to go back to the roots of "News for Nerds, stuff that matter".

You raise a very good question. Who does approve these stories? It would seem that they are terribly unpopular, and most people who comment are mostly people who are simply annoyed at yeat another in a long line of stories that always condense down to all males are disgusting pigs.

I've been here for a bit as well, and this topic is the sewer of Slashdot something I hope would have diminished after Dice gave up the ghost.

It isn't that it is not ever news for nerds, but if anyone is foolish enough ot think that this constant reportage of whining is going to help things, they are not even wrong.

It's Friday. It's what we do. I believe your role is to run around and call them idiots. The people you will be calling idiots will be making non-sequitur-based remarks about how all their ills are due to "SJWs." My job is to laugh at you all and throw in snarky comments. Presumably, a few people get drunk and angry and have long pissing matches about entirely off-topic subjects. Then, even drunker moderators come in and mark the place up, awarding points for originality, style, and punctuation.

Yes, please make it a filter. Some of us like these stories and want to keep reading/commenting on them. For everyone else, a filter will make them happy. Don't turn Slashdot into an MRA/anti-feminist/frat house toilet by banning this stuff, just allow the easily offended to block those stories from their feeds.

It is my belief that, for the original audience of this site, some here since before the 9/11, some even from when http colon slash slash was actually pronounced when reading URLs out loud, the main drive to come and read the front page is to catch up with the latest of the technology and its applications.

Proof once again of the old adage that some people grow up while others merely grow older.

The evolution of technology is defined by those are affected by it and by those who govern its use. Gender issues in tech are not out of bounds for discussion here, Perpetuating the geek stereotypes of the nineties does not insure the future of Slashdot.

I have heard that homosexual men has very similar brain responses to scantily clad women as do their heterosexual peers. So the scantily clad women are not their just for the heterosexual men and lesbians, scantily clad women in fact have universal appeal and are just all round good at helping to sell your products to any and all demographics.

I really think a lot of people are missing the point here. It's not that scantily clad sexy women are sexist per se, it's that this was a party that employees of a company were presumably encouraged to attend as well as an event showcasing the company's public face. In that environment, everyone should feel comfortable. If one wants to go to a strip club or club where there are go-go dancers, etc., that is their business and they can make that choice.

No, no you're still missing the point. The world has lost its politically correct mind. If this trend continues every generation will be leaving the world less free, more uptight, and more neurotic than they found it. The end result of this incessant desire to extend individual rights to never being offended or feeling uncomfortable is not going to be a good thing for future generations.

If one wants to go to a strip club or club where there are go-go dancers, etc., that is their business and they can make that choice.

Tell me about it. I didn't want to go to the Microsoft party either, but they sent me an invite a year ago, then kept reminding me over and over again even after I declined. I moved desks in hope they wouldn't find me but an accidental interaction with the windows update team caused me to start getting all the invites again. Then the other day I woke up drunk with pictures of me with barely dressed girls all around clearly attending a party I didn't want to go to.

Fuck Microsoft for caving and apologizing. Fuck the media for continuing to amplify the voices of a minority who always take offense to everything in a never ending pursuit of fostering controversy and whoring attention for hits and views.

Just because you object to something doesn't grant you the right to ruin it for others who disagree with you.

Why are you so offended by criticism of Microsoft? And why are you so offended that Microsoft listened to the criticism? How does it stop you going to titty bars on your own time? What right do you have to expect corporate events to cater to your sexual wants and be immune from criticism?

Humans are sexy, and there's a time and place for sexy. But unless you're arguing that their only fault was not appealing to all sexual orientations, and that scantily clad men or t-girls should also have been included, then maybe we can save the strippers for events where the main topic actually is people's genitals.

Cisco's recent Cisco Live! event had a stadium full of attendees watch Aerosmith for two hours. Aerosmith has nothing to do with Cisco, or networking, or computers, or technology outside of what of it they use when the produce music. Should this thing, irrelevant to any topic of Cisco's, be dropped as part of the festivities?

Large events are part informative, part marketing, part celebration, and part entertainment. Maybe these tech companies need to be more inclusive if they're going to use sex for part celebration and part entertainment, but on the other hand, without knowing the demographics of the even I couldn't tell you if their choices were balanced against the attendees or not.

Can they? Every woman's profile I see on Tinder says she hates "shirtless selfie" pictures and dick pics. They also all say "no hookups".

Of course, with so many men having shirtless selfies and asking for hookups, I have to wonder if they aren't getting a good amount of success that way anyway, despite what all the women claim in their profiles.

Heterosexual male here. No, of course not. How immature and insecure do you have to be to somehow feel offended by the mere sight of something that doesn't interest you? How about you just pay attention to something else, instead of trying to ram your offence down everybody else's throat?

I do think the event should have had male dancers for the ladies and gay males, if they were going to go down this road. Go down it all the way, or not at all - those are the best choices. (I HAVE seen such parties with both male and female dancers, btw!)

I honestly thing it's pretty tasteless to hire strippers for any sort of party, especially one on the corporate bankroll. That's one of those classic ways to get fired - use a company credit card to hire a stripper for ANY reason.

So you wouldn't have a problem with scantily clad men dancing around. After all, it's only sexuality, and the dancers get paid.

I'm straight, but no, I wouldn't care. I don't feel threatened by buff guys dancing or gyrating or whatever.

In fact, I tend to think it's actually discriminatory not to hire male dancers- hasn't the hue and cry for the last decade been all about "equality" and "equal opportunity"? Why should only women get a chance to make money by being employed as eye-candy at the trade show booths?

Yes. Exactly. Granted, those dancers are being paid to (among other things) look like they're having a great time but I can't imagine any of them having to be forced to dance. They knew what the gig was, they'd seen the costumes ahead of time, if only to make sure that they fit properly, and they could have turned the job down if they felt there was anything wrong with it.

Now, speaking of a heterosexual male, I think that it would have been much better if the entertainment had included some dancing men